From (spam-protected) Sun Sep 5 04:47:50 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Mitar)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:47:50 +0200
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Licenses
Message-ID: <4C8304D6.5040103@tnode.com>
Hi!
I have started a new section: legal. Ramon talked about an idea of
common license/agreement for our networks in a way GPL and other
open-source licenses are helping (and arguably protecting) open-source
and free software movements:
http://interop.wlan-lj.net/#Legal
I have found three such licensees "in the wild". Are there any others?
What do you think about the initiative to try to combine those and make
them translated into various languages and local laws? Both Pico Peering
and Wireless Commons are already trying that. And guifi.net has been
also working on their version for some time.
Mitar
From (spam-protected) Sun Sep 5 13:38:29 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Joseph Bonicioli)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 14:38:29 +0300
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Licenses
In-Reply-To: <4C8304D6.5040103@tnode.com>
References: <4C8304D6.5040103@tnode.com>
Message-ID: <88FD969B59684CE893FC7F7B4CC5C9B0@nettraptor.awmn>
I found in the past that most of them look absolutely the same in the sense
that they are very open and flexi in order to fit all sizes and
circumstances.
Guifi has done a very good job in incorporating many of those with a touch
of salt and pepper to fit Guifi network needs. Actually I found this so
useful that I deluged into a Spanish-Greek translation, since our networks
are very similar (from what I can grasp without visiting guifi).
The more I read it the more it rings bells and the more I feel familiar to
it.
What I want to hear is stories of how they applied this and what reactions
the have from users or group of users. In our experience this procedure is
very cumbersome.
We also had a lot of RFCs (let's call them that or Peering Agreements or
Directives not... Licenses) that they where mainly generated years ago and
where written (or collected) mostly by Mick Flemm (Nick Kosifidis). I dag up
and found the old mambo portal and I am polishing some of those. Not sure if
they are ever going to be used in the form we have taken as a network and
whether they are going to cause havoc, but I feel they should be there
ready.
I agree with Mitar it would be very constructive to put all our "wise" minds
and put down a Peering Agreement like this. We could even make a first use
for it when we interconnect with VPNs or Physical mediums.
JB
-----Original Message-----
From: nodedb-interop-bounces at lists.funkfeuer.at
[mailto:nodedb-interop-bounces at lists.funkfeuer.at] On Behalf Of Mitar
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 5:48 AM
To: nodedb-interop at lists.funkfeuer.at
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Licenses
Hi!
I have started a new section: legal. Ramon talked about an idea of
common license/agreement for our networks in a way GPL and other
open-source licenses are helping (and arguably protecting) open-source
and free software movements:
http://interop.wlan-lj.net/#Legal
I have found three such licensees "in the wild". Are there any others?
What do you think about the initiative to try to combine those and make
them translated into various languages and local laws? Both Pico Peering
and Wireless Commons are already trying that. And guifi.net has been
also working on their version for some time.
Mitar
_______________________________________________
Nodedb-interop mailing list
Nodedb-interop at lists.funkfeuer.at
http://lists.funkfeuer.at/mailman/listinfo/nodedb-interop
From (spam-protected) Sun Sep 5 13:56:58 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Mitar)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:56:58 +0200
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Licenses
In-Reply-To: <88FD969B59684CE893FC7F7B4CC5C9B0@nettraptor.awmn>
References: <4C8304D6.5040103@tnode.com>
<88FD969B59684CE893FC7F7B4CC5C9B0@nettraptor.awmn>
Message-ID: <4C83858A.40107@tnode.com>
Hi!
> Actually I found this so useful that I deluged into a Spanish-Greek
> translation, since our networks are very similar (from what I can
> grasp without visiting guifi).
I was hoping in that we would go into "official" English translation
(and maybe not just translation, but also refinement) from where we
could take it to other languages.
I have some feeling that Pico Peering and Wireless Commons are somehow
initial ideas where guifi.net's XOLN is a product of using them for some
time. Like you make initial proposal and after experience you change it
to cover real needs and problems but in this process it becomes more and
more specific to your network. Now it would be useful to make one step
back again and make it general so that multiple networks can use it, but
all knowledge which has accumulated in the license would be used in there.
Or is this making things complicated where there is no need for that?
What are limitations of Pico Peering Agreement? Maybe it is already OK
as it is and there is no need to change it?
Is it really necessary to make a license "to cover them all" or it is
enough for us to find those which are compatible (or why they are not)?
Similar to GPL and other open source/free software licenses?
But it is true that CreativeCommons is really making a good impact by
having them all under one hood. Maybe a similar schema with on/off
clauses is also possible here (if we find that we cannot agree upon one).
The problem is also that different jurisdictions should have different
licenses.
Maybe we should invite people from all those other licenses to join us?
Mitar
From (spam-protected) Mon Sep 6 04:06:09 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Mitar)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:06:09 +0200
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Licenses
Message-ID: <4C844C91.4090004@tnode.com>
Hi!
I am forwarding.
Mitar
-------- Original Message --------
From: Ramon Roca
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Nodedb-interop] Licenses
To: Mitar
Mitar,
I've been trying to send this mail to the list, but for some reason it
gets rejected.
Cheers from Argentina!
BTW, I've been talking with people of many communities here. Some of
them know about you in slovenia...
I tryied to encourage them about the interop project, I think they
became very excited on this, they also find that a very good initiative
for all of us.
-------- Missatge original --------
Assumpte: Re: [Nodedb-interop] Licenses
Data: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:37:03 +0200
De: Ramon Roca
A: nodedb-interop at lists.funkfeuer.at
Wait, important! Comuns XOLN is a global agreement, not a network specific.
Comuns XOLN is certainly an evolution of the PPA and wiereless commons,
with the strict aim of developing the original idea/meaning, *NOT*
another, and certainly is much more detailed because of the need to
address situations we faced and that were too much ambiguous with the
previous agreements, but still with the aim for being a GLOBAL license
and solve GLOBAL situations for a network available to ALL PUBLIC, it is
*NOT* to become a "network specific". Any network worldwide might face
same situations in the future.
i.e., PPA is good in terms of conceptualizing the idea, but doesn't says
anything or is too much generic about things which can become very
important, like not charging any fee because of traffic interchange or
how you finance the cost of interconnecting, co-ownership of
infrastructures, being granted on access to public domains for being
open and therefore block for reverting to private... and many others.
Anyone will face same situations if hopefully your network grows and
diversifies the network topology, technologies implemented, and type of
users involved.
If you wish, the only "territory specific issue" is about the "default"
jurisdisction, that is, in the very unlikely case that a dispute goes to
court. That is a also a default clause which is common in international
agreements to avoid multiple interpretations. As an example, we already
deployed networks in Africa, but we might don't like to have to go into
court in those countries for a license dispute... Anyway is just a
"default" jurisdiction, if the parts agree, they can change the
jurisdiction to any other. So still global.
Take a look to other licenses like GPL3,having also large texts for a
matter with is much less complex than building interoperable networks...
In short, PPA is just a conceptual summary, but not effective as an
agreement while interacting with several agents like public
administrations or private corporations or for-profit organitzations,
the lack of certain detail creates room for uncomfortable
interpretations which are not particular for us, are for all.
Comuns XOLN is a global license, not network specific.
Al 05/09/10 13:56, En/na Mitar ha escrit:
> I have some feeling that Pico Peering and Wireless Commons are somehow
> initial ideas where guifi.net's XOLN is a product of using them for some
> time. Like you make initial proposal and after experience you change it
> to cover real needs and problems but in this process it becomes more and
> more specific to your network. Now it would be useful to make one step
> back again and make it general so that multiple networks can use it, but
> all knowledge which has accumulated in the license would be used in there.
From (spam-protected) Mon Sep 6 04:34:34 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Mitar)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:34:34 +0200
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Licenses
In-Reply-To: <4C844C91.4090004@tnode.com>
References: <4C844C91.4090004@tnode.com>
Message-ID: <4C84533A.5010503@tnode.com>
Hi!
> BTW, I've been talking with people of many communities here. Some of
> them know about you in slovenia...
Interesting. ;-)
> I tryied to encourage them about the interop project, I think they
> became very excited on this, they also find that a very good initiative
> for all of us.
Yes, we could really do a global project around that.
> Wait, important! Comuns XOLN is a global agreement, not a network specific.
I know. What I meant is that it has knowledge which you as a network
accumulated: experiences, situations, problems.
In this sense it is similar to your schema. It has a lot of knowledge
incorporated. What I am saying is that we try to make something we can
all agree upon and *understand* (reasons behind clauses and similar).
Maybe the result will be exactly the same license as you already have.
Maybe we will improve it in some way. Maybe we will find problems with it.
My point is not so much in the content (I believe you are making it so
that is it useful globally, minus some jurisdiction particularities for
other countries you cannot really do yourself) but in how this license
is presented. Creative Commons is doing here a great job and I thin we
should look upon them.
Like we should have a few of simple and graphical bullets for people to
understand, then we should have a long text meant for lawyers. And we
would have to do on porting some global license to particular
jurisdictions (not just translating them). I was talking with people who
were porting Creative Commons to Slovenia and I got small but positive
response that they would be interested in doing similar also to such
license.
So in this sense I am saying that your license is currently specific to
your network: it uses your language, it uses your names and similar, it
is made for your jurisdiction. It is made with global view (act locally,
think globally) but it is not yet there. And what I am saying: let's get
it there!
This one is also more verbose than PPA:
http://wiki.personaltelco.net/AcceptableUsePolicy
Mitar
From (spam-protected) Mon Sep 6 10:42:59 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Joseph Bonicioli)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:42:59 +0300
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Licenses
In-Reply-To: <4C84533A.5010503@tnode.com>
References: <4C844C91.4090004@tnode.com> <4C84533A.5010503@tnode.com>
Message-ID: <034001cb4d9f$832d8b50$8988a1f0$@net>
Believe me Mitar the Guifi Agreement is so close to reality that I have
experienced in AWMN since 2004 that its staggering. Sad it's all in Spanish.
Now to experience so close and similar issues between communities and to
legislate on them without knowing about each other's issues in the first
place is magic! When you strike such magic then it is right and it fits many
situations. You have to treasure this as an experience of years that someone
is sharing. Even more so when you are start something up.
Better be specific than sorry.
When you reach 1K of nodes you will have no chance to agree on the basics
(Because for me those pages are only the basics). You are going to be
overwhelmed, it is going to be practically impossible to gather one thousand
node keepers and you are going to find yourself in funny situations. To
right the wrongs after a large infestation it is very difficult. I am
talking out of experience.
I see where you come from when you say that you find things very specific.
Even though someone might not agree, we could work on agreements that are
cut in to byte size chunks based on certain issues and offer them for
general use.
Nevertheless I always find that a little more detail to general issues frees
you from the conversations of what is free, open, public, private,
commercial, profit, non-profit, legal, illegal and the like. Makes things
closer to crystal clear.
Open nets seem to be simple as a concept but they are not. They can involve
many parties, many functions and many services. You have to address all of
those.
My 2 cents
-----Original Message-----
From: nodedb-interop-bounces at lists.funkfeuer.at
[mailto:nodedb-interop-bounces at lists.funkfeuer.at] On Behalf Of Mitar
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:35 AM
To: nodedb-interop at lists.funkfeuer.at
Subject: Re: [Nodedb-interop] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Licenses
Hi!
> BTW, I've been talking with people of many communities here. Some of
> them know about you in slovenia...
Interesting. ;-)
> I tryied to encourage them about the interop project, I think they
> became very excited on this, they also find that a very good initiative
> for all of us.
Yes, we could really do a global project around that.
> Wait, important! Comuns XOLN is a global agreement, not a network
specific.
I know. What I meant is that it has knowledge which you as a network
accumulated: experiences, situations, problems.
In this sense it is similar to your schema. It has a lot of knowledge
incorporated. What I am saying is that we try to make something we can
all agree upon and *understand* (reasons behind clauses and similar).
Maybe the result will be exactly the same license as you already have.
Maybe we will improve it in some way. Maybe we will find problems with it.
My point is not so much in the content (I believe you are making it so
that is it useful globally, minus some jurisdiction particularities for
other countries you cannot really do yourself) but in how this license
is presented. Creative Commons is doing here a great job and I thin we
should look upon them.
Like we should have a few of simple and graphical bullets for people to
understand, then we should have a long text meant for lawyers. And we
would have to do on porting some global license to particular
jurisdictions (not just translating them). I was talking with people who
were porting Creative Commons to Slovenia and I got small but positive
response that they would be interested in doing similar also to such
license.
So in this sense I am saying that your license is currently specific to
your network: it uses your language, it uses your names and similar, it
is made for your jurisdiction. It is made with global view (act locally,
think globally) but it is not yet there. And what I am saying: let's get
it there!
This one is also more verbose than PPA:
http://wiki.personaltelco.net/AcceptableUsePolicy
Mitar
_______________________________________________
Nodedb-interop mailing list
Nodedb-interop at lists.funkfeuer.at
http://lists.funkfeuer.at/mailman/listinfo/nodedb-interop
From (spam-protected) Mon Sep 6 12:55:39 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Joseph Bonicioli)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 13:55:39 +0300
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] An eco Frindly AWMN Node
In-Reply-To: <034001cb4d9f$832d8b50$8988a1f0$@net>
References: <4C844C91.4090004@tnode.com> <4C84533A.5010503@tnode.com>
<034001cb4d9f$832d8b50$8988a1f0$@net>
Message-ID: <035101cb4db2$0b57ec20$2207c460$@net>
Look what someone found today a bb link. :)
http://www.diavgia.com/18.jpg
From (spam-protected) Wed Sep 8 07:41:24 2010
From: (spam-protected) (Mitar)
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:41:24 +0200
Subject: [Nodedb-interop] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Licenses
In-Reply-To: <034001cb4d9f$832d8b50$8988a1f0$@net>
References: <4C844C91.4090004@tnode.com> <4C84533A.5010503@tnode.com>
<034001cb4d9f$832d8b50$8988a1f0$@net>
Message-ID: <4C872204.5050801@tnode.com>
Hi!
> Open nets seem to be simple as a concept but they are not. They can involve
> many parties, many functions and many services. You have to address all of
> those.
I completely agree with everything you wrote and I can already see why
all this specific things are needed. What I am just saying is, that we
should go with this like CC is going: simple text with icons for people
to understand what is this about + long, legal, specific text.
Intellectual property laws also involve many parties, but CC community
managed to made those licenses simple to use while still making things
quite specific.
So let us get an English version we can agree upon and then from there
make a short version for users to quickly understand (just few points).
And then we can start porting that to specific jurisdictions. I would be
glad to organize getting it and using it here, even if we are not yet so
big. But as you said, it will be harder or even impossible later.
Mitar